Throughout 1905, the government was unable to take the initiative into its own hands and was dragged behind events, although the police managed to carry out successful operations to suppress the preparation of “revolutionary parties” for an uprising. It was more difficult to cope with the strike movement. The “revolutionary” parties skillfully carried out anti-state agitation and had an agreement on joint actions against the government. The question arose about convening a broader representative parliament, but first it was necessary to provide political rights to the population of Russia.

Meanwhile, events intensified. In October, a political strike began in large cities, in which, along with workers, representatives of the technical intelligentsia also participated. On October 8, 1905, traffic on the Moscow Railway ceased; by October 17, a significant part of the roads was paralyzed. Factories closed, newspapers were not published, and there was almost no electricity in large cities. Nicholas I rejected the proposal for emergency measures and the appointment of a “dictator”.

Seeing the severity of the situation, Nikolai turned for help to Vitta, who recently managed to sign an agreement with Japan on more or less acceptable terms. On October 9, Witte presented the sovereign with a memorandum outlining the current state of affairs and the reform program. Stating that since the beginning of the year “a true revolution has taken place in the minds,” Witte considered the decrees of August 6 outdated, and since “the revolutionary ferment is too great,” he came to the conclusion that urgent measures must be taken “before “No, it’s too late.” He advised the tsar: it was necessary to put a limit on the arbitrariness and despotism of the administration, grant the people basic freedoms and establish a real constitutional regime.

After hesitating for a week, Nikolai decided to sign the text prepared by Witte on the basis of the memorandum. But at the same time, the king believed that he was violating the oath given at the time of his accession to the throne. On October 17, 1905, a manifesto was published, which formally meant the end of the existence of an unlimited monarchy in Russia.

• 1) grant the population the unshakable foundations of civil freedom on the basis of personal inviolability, freedom, conscience, speech, meetings and unions;
• 2) without stopping the scheduled elections to the State Duma, now attract to participation in the Duma... those classes of the population that are now completely deprived of voting rights, thereby granting further development the beginning of the development of general suffrage under the newly established legislative order, and
• 3) establish as an unshakable rule that no law can take effect without the approval of the State Duma and that those elected by the people are provided with the opportunity to truly participate in monitoring the regularity of the actions of the authorities appointed by us.”

The “United Government” formed the Ministry Council, of which Witte was appointed chairman (i.e., the first Russian prime minister).

The manifesto established political rights for Russian citizens: personal integrity, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and unions (trade unions and parties). Segments of the population previously deprived of voting rights were involved in parliamentary elections. According to the Manifesto, the State Duma changed its significance and acquired the features of a developed parliament; it was proclaimed that the law could not be in force without the approval of the State Duma. Thus, Russia has embarked on the path of fairly mature parliamentarism.

The appearance of the Manifesto on October 17 caused confusion among local authorities and did not bring immediate calm. If moderate liberal circles were ready to accept the situation created by the manifesto as the fulfillment of their desires for the constitutional transformation of Russia, then left circles, Social Democrats and Socialist Revolutionaries, were not in the least satisfied and decided to continue the struggle to achieve their program goals ( “they did not want the whip wrapped in the parchment of the constitution”); on the other hand, right-wing circles rejected the concessions to the revolution contained in the Manifesto of October 17 and demanded the preservation of unlimited tsarist autocracy.

Soon after the manifesto appeared, the railway strike ended, but the “turmoil and unrest” not only did not stop, but spread throughout the country: either revolutionary or counter-revolutionary demonstrations took place in cities, and in many cities counter-revolutionary crowds of “Black Hundreds” smashed intellectuals and Jews ; A wave of agrarian pogroms broke out in the villages - crowds of peasants smashed and burned landowners' estates.

On November 3, a manifesto was issued, appealing to the peasants to stop the unrest, promising to take possible measures to improve the situation of the peasants and abolishing redemption payments for peasant allotments.

The Manifesto proclaimed “the unshakable foundations of civil freedom on the basis of actual inviolability of the individual, freedom of conscience, speech, assembly and association”; The Duma became the highest legislative body in Russia, and the right to vote was promised to those sections of the population that had previously been deprived of it, primarily the workers.

The October 17 manifesto had a number of far-reaching consequences. While marking a major victory for the revolutionary movement, the Manifesto at the same time introduced a split into it. A significant role in this was played by liberal figures who had previously kept in the shadows, but now came to the fore. The manifesto provided them with the opportunity to create legal parties, which they immediately took advantage of. On October 12-18, in the midst of a political strike, as if in anticipation of inevitable concessions on the part of the autocracy, the founding congress of the constitutional democratic (cadet) party was held, prepared by the Liberation Union and the most determined Zemstvo residents. In their ranks, the Cadets united primarily representatives of the intelligentsia - urban and zemstvo, as well as landowners, the bourgeoisie, the military, and officials. Although such a composition did not give the cadets a sufficiently reliable social support, it did allow them to lay claim to the expression of all-Russian interests.

The leaders of the Cadets, among whom the famous historian P. N. Milyukov especially stood out, constantly declared the non-class nature of their party. The cadet program was also drawn up from a similar position: its authors tried to find compromise solutions to the most pressing issues of Russian reality. Thus, it was planned to force the alienation of landowners' lands for ransom, but only that part that the landowners, without cultivating themselves, rented out. The introduction of an 8-hour working day was envisaged, but not everywhere, but only where it is in given time perhaps the establishment of freedom of personality, speech, assembly, etc. The Cadets left the question of uniform open in their program government controlled in Russia. As subsequent events showed, they were ready to be content with a constitutional monarchy.

The Union of October 17 (Octobrists) was a more integral party and defined in its composition: it included the top of the big bourgeoisie and bourgeois landowners who managed to transfer their farms to capitalist lines. As the name of the party suggests, the concessions promised by the Manifesto of October 17 fully satisfied its members, but more serious reforms could only frighten them. The recognized leader of the party was the representative of the old Moscow merchant family A.I. Guchkov.

Having consolidated their forces, these parties launched an active struggle to end the revolution. From their point of view, it fulfilled its task, giving the country a legislative Duma, on which the population was asked to place all their hopes. Among the masses, tired of difficult trials, such calls found a certain response.

The proclamation of political freedoms forced the reactionaries to organize themselves. Immediately after the publication of the Manifesto, opponents of the autocracy, who celebrated their victory with grandiose demonstrations and rallies, had to face the Black Hundreds. On the streets Russian cities real battles ensued, accompanied by numerous casualties.

The main organizing force of this movement were the noble landowners of the old, feudal order. The “constitutional” concession of Nicholas II frightened them - the next step could well be the confiscation of the landowners' lands. Feeling that the ground was slipping from under their feet, the reactionaries tried to provide active support to the autocracy in the fight against the revolution, with any serious changes. Many representatives of the bureaucratic apparatus took an active part in the Black Hundred movement, and the Russian clergy did not shy away from it. The Black Hundred found serious support among the wealthy urban philistines - small traders, homeowners, etc. The leaders of the Black Hundred movement did not hesitate to use for their own purposes the declassed elements that settled in abundance at the bottom of large cities.

Being so diverse in composition, the Black Hundreds were distinguished by an extremely simple and clear ideology: all the troubles of the great and mighty Russia come from revolutionary intellectuals and foreigners who want to destroy it in the name of their own dark interests. What is needed is not reforms, but a merciless fight against troublemakers. In 1905-1907 The Black Hundreds, who enjoyed the tacit support of the government, widely put these ideas into practice: they killed revolutionaries, participated in the dispersal of rallies and demonstrations, organized Jewish pogroms, etc. The most widespread Black Hundred organizations were the Union of the Russian People, the Russian People's Union named after Michael the Archangel.

Thus, at the end of 1905, the revolution had powerful opponents, some of whom skillfully acted with words, others mercilessly with deeds. At the same time, the new government, headed by Witte, began to take increasingly decisive measures to restore order in the country. Under these conditions, the revolutionary movement gradually lost its breadth, power and cohesion.

36. Manifesto October 17, 1905.”On improvement public order“History of development, legal nature and political significance

Beginning of the 20th century - the time of the emergence of political parties, the official basis for which appearedManifesto October 17, 1905,proclaimed freedom of speech, assembly and association.

In October, a strike began in Moscow, which spread throughout the country and grew into the All-Russian October political strike. The government and Nicholas II were faced with a choice: to restore order with an “iron hand” or to make concessions. Count Sergei Witte, soon appointed head of government, strongly defended the second possibility. At the beginning of October 1905, Witte submitted to the Tsar a “most submissive report,” in which the Government’s task was declared to be “the desire to implement now, pending legislative sanction through the State Duma,” civil liberties. It was immediately emphasized that “establishing law and order” is a long process. Witte called the most important measures to resolve the situation here the unification of ministries and the transformation of the State Council. This report was too moderate, and it seemed so even to Nicholas II. As a consequence, on October 14, he ordered Witte to draw up a manifesto on freedoms. Witte, in turn, instructed Finance Minister A.D. Obolensky. On October 17, Nicholas II signed the manifesto in the form in which A.D. prepared it. Obolensky and N.I. Vuchetich under the leadership of Witte. The Supreme Manifesto on the improvement of state order was promulgated on October 17, 1905. The historical significance of the Manifesto lay in the distribution of the sole right of the Russian Emperor to legislate between, in fact, the monarch and the legislative (representative) body - the State Duma. Thus, a parliamentary system was introduced in Russia. The State Council (the highest legislative body of the Russian Empire, existing since 1810) became the upper house of parliament, the State Duma - the lower house. Segments of the population previously deprived of voting rights were involved in parliamentary elections. No law could come into force without parliamentary approval. At the same time, the Emperor retained the right to dissolve the Duma and block its decisions with his veto. Subsequently, Nicholas II used these rights more than once.

Also, the Manifesto proclaimed and provided civil rights and freedoms, such as freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom to form associations. Thus, the manifesto was the predecessor of the Russian constitution.

The liberal public greeted the manifesto with jubilation. The goal of the revolution was considered achieved, the formation of the Cadets Party was completed, the “Union of October 17” and other parties arose. The left circles, the Social Democrats and the Socialist Revolutionaries, were not in the least satisfied and decided to continue the struggle to achieve their program goals. The publication of the manifesto also led to the most massive pogroms of Jews in the history of the Russian Empire.

October 30 (new time) 1905 during the revolutionary events of 1905-1907 in Russia, the emperor Nicholas II published the so-called "October 17 Manifesto" (“On improving public order”).

The peak of the thunderous events of the First Russian Revolution occurred in October 1905. More than 2 million workers went on strike across the country. Landowners' estates were burning everywhere. Even the army, which the tsarist government always relied on as a force capable of suppressing any rebellion, no longer seemed as reliable as before (the uprising on the battleship Potemkin, which shook the whole of Odessa, was only the “first sign”).

The reasons lay in serious economic problems, caused by the abolition of serfdom in 1861, which did not solve a lot of problems (land shortage of peasants, their economic dependence both on their former landowners and on the state) and the inability of the conservative monarchical system to adequately respond to the difficulties that arose. And the economic crisis that swept across Europe and hit Russia hardest, as Lenin put it, which was “the weakest link in the chain of imperialist states,” also had its impact. How can one not recall the three signs of a revolutionary situation, well known to all Soviet schoolchildren, formulated by the same Lenin (remember: “the upper classes cannot” and “the lower classes do not want”?).

Defeat in the “small victorious”, in the words of the Minister of Internal Affairs V.K. Plehve, Russo-Japanese War 1904-1905, as well as the events of “Bloody Sunday” (January 9, 1905) were the last straw.

However, Plehve himself did not live to see either the defeat of Russia in the war against Japan, or the Manifesto in question, since he was killed by a militant of the Socialist Revolutionary Party E. Sozonov on July 15 (28), 1904 (interestingly, the main organizer of Plehve’s murder was an agent secret police and at the same time a member of the Central Committee of the Socialist Revolutionary Party E. F. Azef).

Portrait of V. K. Plehve by I. E. Repin (1902):

Initially, the government tried to pacify the people with various decrees and legislative acts (for example, the promise of creating a legislative advisory representative body, which went down in history under the name “Bulyginskaya Duma”, after the name of the then head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs), as well as by force.

Of course, the situation when the government either promised its subjects some freedom and civil rights, then canceled its decisions, only contributed to the tension in the situation. When popular uprisings reached their peak, the emperor was forced to order the immediate development of the text of a manifesto that would announce the transition political system from absolute to constitutional monarchy.

Nicholas II in 1905 (portrait by G. M. Manizer):

In the "Manifesto of October 17", prepared by the head of the Council of Ministers S.Yu.Witte , who considered constitutional concessions the only means of preserving autocracy, it was promised to grant the people “the unshakable foundations of civil freedom.”

S. Yu. Witte on a sketch by I. E. Repin:

The manifesto proclaimed some democratic innovations, such as personal integrity, freedom of speech, assembly, the creation of public institutions and others. In addition, the scope of suffrage was expanded and the first Russian parliament was created. The State Duma , it was recognized by the legislature.

Opening of the State Duma:

Liberal circles of Russian society greeted the proposed transformations with enthusiasm.
The manifesto was in the nature of an interim solution. He managed to somewhat extinguish the fire of the revolution, but the tsar’s reluctance to give up power and his sole right to dissolve the Duma created a contradictory effect that did not fully satisfy the aspirations of the country’s population. And the armed uprising in Moscow in December 1905, organized by the Social Revolutionaries and Social Democrats, is direct confirmation of this.

"Barricades on Presnya" (artist I. A. Vladimirov):

And the electoral law, according to which the first parliament in Russia was elected, was far from democratic (and after the dissolution of the Second State Duma on June 3, 1907, which was followed by a completely illegitimate new (“Stolypin”) electoral law, there were no general and equal elections I have to say it).

The painting, painted by Ilya Efimovich Repin in 1907, was a response to the manifesto of Nicholas II of October 17, 1905, “On the improvement of public order,” published during the days of the revolutionary upsurge in the country.
I. E. Repin wrote: “The painting depicts a procession of the liberation movement of Russian progressive society... mainly students, female students, professors and workers with red flags, enthusiastic; with the singing of revolutionary songs...lifted onto the shoulders of the amnestied and a crowd of thousands moving across the square big city in the ecstasy of general rejoicing."

Among those depicted in the picture are democratically minded philologist M. Prakhov (left), actress L. Yavorskaya (with a bouquet), critic V.V. Stasov (center).

Height revolutions 1905-1907 persuaded the government of Nicholas II to accept in August 1905 the draft introduction legislative people's representation (“Bulyginskaya Duma”). But the narrowness of the rights of this body did not satisfy the revolutionaries. The unrest continued to spread. This is what the great Russian writer A. I. Solzhenitsyn writes about the unrest that unfolded on the eve of the publication of the Manifesto on October 17:

“...The revelry only went further. Journalism was completely dissolute, and no one turned to the judiciary to apply the laws to it. One printing house began to go on strike - its young typesetters, mixed with some suspicious crowd, went to knock out the windows in the other printing houses - and they all stopped. Sometimes they killed or wounded a policeman or a gendarme... Until the post office went on strike, vile and vile letters came to the grand dukes. Then the post office went on strike, followed by the telegraph; for some reason, attorneys at law, high school students, bakers went on strike, and it spread from establishment to establishment. Even a theological academy! - and the Metropolitan, having appeared to reassure them, was not allowed inside by the students whistling and revolutionary songs. Some priests refused to read the Metropolitan's message of appeasement. Moscow did not pull out of strikes and street clashes throughout September and October. The strikers demanded that the factories have deputies who could not be fired, who could not be arrested, and that the deputies themselves could fire the administration. Self-proclaimed congresses were held, the deputies were chosen by themselves. (Strangely, local authorities did not act). Proclamations containing many promises were distributed. Street gatherings were already gathering, and the speakers were demanding not the Zemstvo members, not the Duma members, but only the overthrow of the autocracy and the constituent assembly. The order was not to shoot, but to disperse. Agent telegrams only reported about the murders of policemen, Cossacks, soldiers, unrest and disturbances. But the judicial authorities did not prosecute political criminals, judicial investigators did not discover the perpetrators, and all of them, including the prosecutors, sympathized with them.”

In October 1905, anarchy reached the point of an all-Russian political strike.

“The revolutionary railway union formed itself and began to force the entire mass of railway employees to go on strike. This went quickly for them; from October 7 to October 10, almost all roads leaving Moscow went on strike. They had a plan: to cause a general hunger strike and prevent the movement of troops if the government wanted to suppress. Students ordered shops to close. Taking advantage of the lack of information, the attackers spread a rumor throughout Moscow that the Emperor “refused and went abroad.” Immediately, Moscow was left without water, without electricity, and all pharmacies went on strike. In St. Petersburg, Nikolai gave all the troops of the garrison to Trepov, who warned that any disorder would be suppressed, and everything remained calm here. In the meantime, they decided to do a general strike throughout the country, terrible. Yes, there may be a lot of fairness in the work requirements, but no one wanted to wait until everything was decided gradually.”

Telegraph and telephone communications were interrupted everywhere. In these October days of 1905, most Russian people did not know what was happening in the neighboring city. The Tsar, who was in St. Petersburg, was almost unaware of the situation in Moscow. Participants in the general strike demanded a Constituent Assembly on the basis of a general-secret-direct-equal vote, the abolition of martial law and the immediate introduction (right in the midst of anarchy that threatened the very existence of Russia) of all possible freedoms.

Some strong figures, like St. Petersburg Governor-General Dmitry Trepov, stood for restoring order through decisive measures. But such people constituted a small minority at the top. Most prominent dignitaries, on the contrary, gravitated towards complete capitulation to the revolution. This pseudo-liberal movement, which then persuaded the Tsar to publish the Manifesto on October 17, was led by one known for its moral “Machiavellianism.” S. Yu. Witte. When in 1903 the “guardian” was promoted to the first role in the Russian government V. K. Plehve, Witte actually found himself in a state of honorable retirement. He ardently sought to return to the leading position among the ministers and planned to enter into a close alliance with the revolutionary liberals for this purpose.

Witte asked for a separate audience with Nicholas II and gradually began to instill in him the idea of ​​retreating before the revolutionary rapists. As A.I. Solzhenitsyn writes with irony:

“Witte began to come to Peterhof in the morning and left almost in the evening. One day he reported everything completely to Nikolai, another time together with Alix, and presented a note. Only an outstanding mind could help in this difficult situation, and here it was. He knew how to think somehow loftily, above the everyday tasks of a simple government - at the level of all human history or scientific theory itself. And he spoke willingly, for a long time, with enthusiasm, to be listened to. He said that the progressive development of the human spirit is now manifesting itself in Russia, that every social organism has an inherent desire for freedom - and this is naturally manifested in the movement of Russian society towards civil rights. And so that this movement, now approaching an explosion, does not cause anarchy, it is necessary for the state to boldly and openly become the head of this movement. Freedom will soon triumph anyway, but it’s scary if, with the help of a revolution, socialist attempts, the destruction of family and religion, will be torn apart by foreign powers. But one can easily escape from all this if the slogan of government activity, like that of society, becomes the slogan of complete freedom - and immediately the government will gain support and introduce the movement within its borders. (And Witte personally undertook to firmly implement such a policy). The Deliberative Duma was proposed too late and no longer satisfies social ideals, which have moved into the realm of extreme ideas. We should not rely on the loyalty of the peasantry, or somehow single them out, but we must satisfy progressive social thought and move towards universal-equal-secret voting as the ideal of the future. And there is no need to be afraid of the word “constitution,” which means the division of legislative royal power with elected ones; we must prepare for this outcome. The main thing is to choose ministers who enjoy public respect. (And who used it more than Witte!) Yes, Witte did not hide: this would be a sharp turn in the politics of entire centuries of Russia. But in an exceptionally dangerous moment it is impossible to cling to tradition any longer. There is no choice: either the monarch becomes the head of the liberation movement or surrenders the country to be torn apart by spontaneity.”

These subtle, crafty persuasions led the indecisive king into complete confusion:

“With his arguments, Nikolai could not resist this inexorable logic, and the situation really suddenly seemed terribly ruined... But his heart resisted and did not want to immediately give up his power, and the traditions of centuries, and the peasantry. As if something was a little wrong - and there was no one else to consult with someone so smart.”

Since the unfortunate, tragic day of January 9, 1905, it was extremely difficult for the tsar to decide to use troops against the people.

“After Witte’s seductive convictions, without finding a solution in Alix, Nikolai consulted with someone for a day and another day, and languished, not finding and not seeing a solution from anywhere...

...It seemed that maybe Witte was exaggerating and that we could avoid a big decision altogether and make a simple small one. And Nicholas gave Witte a telegram about this: to unite the actions of all ministers (still scattered, since each of them reported to the Emperor) - and restore order to railways and everywhere in general. And when a calm life begins, it will be natural to call on elected officials.

But it turned out to be Trepov’s program, and Witte, Trepov’s enemy, could not accept it. The next morning he sailed to Peterhof and again imagined that the path of suppression was theoretically possible, although it was unlikely to be successful, but it was not he, Witte, who was capable of carrying it out. In addition, for protection Russian roads there are not enough troops; on the contrary, they are all located beyond Baikal and are held back by roads. Witte has now brought his thoughts embodied in an all-submissive report, which the Sovereign only needs to approve and a new line will be chosen: to heal Russia by broadly granting freedoms, first and immediately - the press, meetings, unions, and then the political idea of ​​​​the prudent majority will gradually become clear and things will be arranged accordingly legal order, albeit over many years, because the population will not soon develop civic skills.

Emperor Nicholas II. Portrait by I. Repin, 1896

We talked in the morning and talked some more in the evening. There was a lot of strangeness in what Witte proposed, but no one suggested and there was no one to ask anything else. So it was as if I had to agree. It was just scary to surrender into one person’s hands right away. Wouldn’t Witte want to take on as Minister of Internal Affairs a person of a different direction - Goremykina? No, Witte insisted, he should not be constrained in independently choosing his employees, and - do not be afraid - even from public figures.

No! Nikolai could not approve such a report. And then: something must come personally from the Emperor, some kind of manifesto. A manifesto of gift, which is announced in churches directly to the ears and hearts of the people yearning for these freedoms. For Nicholas, the whole point of concessions could only be in the form of such a manifesto: so that it came straight from the tsar - and towards the people's desires. Yes, that’s it, let Witte draw up a project and bring it tomorrow...

...And in the morning he rushed Uncle Nikolasha- bypassing strikes, on relays directly from near Tula, from his estate. Here's the arrival, and by the way! If we are going to appoint a firm hand, a dictator, then who is better? Since Nikolai was a squadron member in the Life Hussar Regiment, and Nikolasha was his regimental commander, Nikolasha remained a great military authority for him. And upon arrival, with a bang, Nikolasha even agreed to dictatorship. But then Witte came again, poured out his sweet admonitions - and Nikolai again softened, became confused, and Nikolasha was completely convinced, became a mountain for Witte and for freedoms and even said that he would shoot himself if Niki did not sign the freedoms. The fact is, Witte convinced them, that if an energetic military man suppresses sedition now, it will cost streams of blood, and the respite will bring only a temporary one. According to Witte’s program, the calm will be lasting. Witte only insisted on publishing his report - so that the Emperor would not take responsibility (or perhaps he wanted to appear better to society?), and it is difficult to put it in a manifesto. However, he was also preparing a manifesto: they drafted it on the ship, now the employees there were finalizing it at the pier.”

(A.I. Solzhenitsyn. August of the Fourteenth)

Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich (“Uncle Nikolasha”)

The main provisions of the Manifesto of October 17, 1905

“They sent for the manifesto.

It contained wonderful words: “The good of the Russian Sovereign is inseparable from the good of the people: and the people’s sorrow is His sorrow.” This was exactly as Nikolai truly understood and would constantly like to express, but there were no skillful intermediaries. He sincerely wondered why the evil unrest did not subside, why mutual peace and patience would not be established, under which all peaceful people, both in the countryside and in the city, would live well, and many loyal officials, and many sympathetic dignitaries, civil and military, as well as the Imperial Court and the Imperial House, all the great princes and princesses - and no one would have to sacrifice anything or change their lifestyle. (Especially, Mom always insisted that no one touch the issue of cabinet and appanage lands that these pigs want to take away according to the programs of different parties).

And the manifesto also contained: all the freedoms that Witte insisted on, and the expansion of voters in the already announced Duma, and as a future ideal - universal suffrage, as well as the impotence in future of every law not approved by the State Duma.

Of course, the Tsar understood that the Russian people were not yet ready for representation, they were still ignorant and uneducated, and meanwhile the intelligentsia was filled with revolutionary ideas. But there will be a concession - not to the street, not to the revolution, but to the moderate state elements, for whom this is being built.

And it wasn’t exactly the same constitution that came out of it if it came from the royal heart and was given by his kind gesture?

Everyone present agreed - but out of caution, Nikolai did not sign and left it at home to pray and think.

And consult with Alix. And consult with someone else, with Goremykin, with others. Two more draft manifestos were drawn up. However, Witte warned when leaving that every change should be agreed with him, otherwise he would not undertake to implement it. On Sunday night they sent old Fredericks to St. Petersburg to see Witte. He did not accept a single amendment, saw in this a lack of confidence in himself and already refused the post of first minister.

But during these days no one suggested a decisively different way out: except for the faithful Trepov, everyone, led by Nikolasha, was convinced of the need to grant freedoms and limit the tsarist power.

The decision was terrible, Nikolai was aware of this. The same torment and bewilderment as with the Japanese world: did it work out well? or bad? After all, he changed the limits of royal power, inviolably received from his ancestors. It was like a coup against oneself. He felt like he was losing his crown. But the consolation was that this was God’s will, that Russia would at least emerge from the unbearable chaotic state in which it had been for a year. That with this Manifesto the Sovereign pacifies his country, strengthens the moderates against all extremes.

And it became good for him to grant him freedom.

This happened on Monday, October 17, and just on the 17th anniversary of the train accident, where the dynasty almost died (they were also commemorated every year). Attended the celebration of the Combined Guards Battalion. They served a prayer service. Then we sat and waited for Witte to arrive. Nikolasha was somehow too cheerful. And he also convinced that all the troops were in Manchuria anyway, there was nothing to establish a dictatorship with. And Nikolai’s head became completely heavy and his thoughts were confused, as if in a cloud.

After praying and crossing himself, he signed. And immediately, my state of mind improved, as always when a decision has already been made and experienced. Yes, now, after the Manifesto, everything should have calmed down quickly.”

(A.I. Solzhenitsyn. August of the Fourteenth)

The immediate meaning of the Manifesto of October 17, 1905

The manifesto of October 17, 1905 did not have at all the consequences that the resourceful Witte promised. He did not calm down the revolution, but rather inflamed it even more. A. I. Solzhenitsyn writes:

“And the next morning was sunny, joyful, a good omen. Already on this day, Nikolai expected the first waves of popular rejoicing and gratitude. But to his amazement, everything turned out wrong. Those who rejoiced did not thank the emperor, but tore his portraits publicly, vilified his remaining power, the insignificance of concessions and demanded a Constituent Assembly instead of the State Duma. In St. Petersburg there was no bloodshed only thanks to Trepov, he banned all processions in general (the press insisted on dismissing him), but in Moscow and in all other cities they were - with red banners, the triumph of victory, ridicule of the tsar, but not gratitude. And when a day later, in response, the alarmed believing people, led by no one, rose up in all the cities with icons, portraits of the Emperor, national flags, an anthem, then there was not gratitude or rejoicing in them, but anxiety. In vain did the Synod try to stop the second movement, that the king was powerful and could handle it himself - the two movements, red and tricolor, in all cities could not help but come into conflict, civil strife among the crowds, and the frightened authorities were not there. And it is amazing with what unanimity and immediately this happened in all the cities of Russia and Siberia: the people were outraged by the mocking rampage of the revolutionaries, and since many of them were Jews, the anger of the alarmed people fell in some places in Jewish pogroms. (In England, of course, they wrote, as always, that these riots were organized by the police). The crowd in some places became so furious that they set fire to government buildings where the revolutionaries had locked themselves, and killed anyone who came out. Now, a few days later, Nikolai received many cordial telegrams from everywhere with a clear indication that they wanted to preserve the autocracy. His loneliness was broken through by popular support - but why not in the previous days, why were they silent before? good people, when both the active Nikolasha and the devoted Goremykin agreed that they had to give in? Autocracy! - Should we assume that he is no longer there? Or did it remain in the highest sense?

In the highest sense, it could not be shaken; without it there is no Russia.

It also happened here that, apart from the Manifesto and the Witte Report, not a single document was drawn up; they didn’t have time: all the old laws seemed to be abolished at once, but not a single one was drawn up new law, not a single new rule. But the merciful God had to help, Nikolai felt His support in himself, and this did not allow him to lose heart.

Witte turned to the newspapers and through the newspapers to society for help: give him a few weeks of respite, and he would organize a government. But society demanded that calm begin with the abolition of enhanced security and martial law, with the dismissal of Trepov, with the abolition death penalty for robberies, arson and murder, with the withdrawal of troops and Cossacks from the capital (they saw in the troops main reason riots) and the repeal of the last restrictive laws on the press, so that the press would no longer be responsible for any expression at all. And within a few days Witte was at a loss, not finding support: no matter how he called, none of the Zemstvo members and liberals went to his government to lead freedom. And although he replaced half of the ministers and 34 governors, fired Trepov and many police officials, he did not achieve peace, but only worse ruin. It’s strange that such an experienced, intelligent person made a mistake in his calculations. Likewise, the new government, like all the previous ones, was afraid to act and waited for orders. Now Nikolasha was very disappointed in Witte.

Only now, belatedly, it became clear that the Moscow strike had already turned to calm on the eve of the Manifesto: the water supply system, horse trams, and slaughterhouses began working again, university students surrendered, the city duma no longer demanded a republic, the Kazan, Yaroslavl, and Nizhny Novgorod roads had already decided to go back to work, - oh, if only I knew this in those days! - everything was already beginning to calm down, and there was no need for any Manifesto, - but the Tsar poured it on like kerosene to the fire, and again all of Moscow began to seethe, and even Governor General Durnovo took off his hat at the Marseillaise and welcomed the red flags, some paramedic came to the funeral almost a hundred thousand, speeches were made not to believe the Manifesto and overthrow the Tsar, brand new revolvers were distributed from the university (not all ships ran aground, the sea border is long, you can’t guard it all). And in St. Petersburg, students from the Technological Institute threw a bomb at the Semyonovites.

Oh, who then would have jumped up and said that it was already calming down?!!... Or why, really, didn’t listen to Wilhelm in the summer, didn’t rush to elect and assemble this deliberative Duma? - It would be even better to stop everything! And now it only glowed more intensely. They rushed to liberate the prisons with red flags. National flags were torn down everywhere. The former strikers demanded pay for the days of the strike - and in the meantime new strikes were announced. The press reached unbridled impudence - any perversions about power, lies and dirt, and all censorship completely disappeared, and revolutionary newspapers were already openly appearing. Gatherings in higher educational institutions stretched out over weeks. Traffic on the railways stopped again, and Siberia was completely interrupted, to the east of Omsk there was complete anarchy, in Irkutsk there was a republic, and from Vladivostok a revolt of reserves flared up, not being sent to their homeland. There was indignation in one of the grenadier regiments in Moscow, and soldier unrest in Voronezh and Kyiv. For two days Kronstadt was in the grip of an over-drunk sailor crowd (and even the details could not be found out, the telephone did not work, only the windows of the Peterhof Palace trembled from Kronstadt shots), and the naval crew went on a rampage in St. Petersburg. In the south and east of Russia, armed gangs roamed and took the lead in the destruction of estates. Urban agitators incited peasants to rob the landowners - and there was no one to restrain them. Peasant riots spread from one area to another. The revolutionary parties openly discussed how to conduct propaganda among the troops and raise an armed uprising. The self-proclaimed council of workers' deputies in the capital seized printing houses and demanded money. Poland was all in a rebellious movement, the Baltic provinces and Finland were in a genuine uprising (bridges were blown up, entire counties were captured), the governor-general fled on a battleship (Nicholas yielded to the Finns in everything, signed another manifesto). Happened here sea ​​riot in Sevastopol. Back in the Navy! (It’s amazing how these scoundrels didn’t care at all about the honor of Russia and how they didn’t remember their oath!) And then an all-Russian postal and telegraph strike broke out - neither traffic nor messages became even worse. Sometimes from Tsarskoe Selo they spoke to St. Petersburg only by wireless telegraph. It was impossible to find out how Russia fell in one month! - her whole life, activities, farming, finances, not to mention external relations. Ah, if only the authorities performed their duty honestly and without fear of anything! But selfless people were not visible at the posts.

And Witte, who never led the “natural movement of progress,” now proposed shooting and hanging, but he himself did not have the strength.

Yes, bloodshed was still coming, only worse. And it’s painful and scary to think that all the dead and all the wounded are our own people. It’s a shame for Russia that it is forced to go through such a crisis in front of the whole world, and what it has been brought to in a short time.”

(A.I. Solzhenitsyn. August of the Fourteenth)

Manifesto of October 17, 1905 and the Duma monarchy

The general principles set out in the Manifesto of October 17, 1905 were soon developed into a number of specific legal acts. These included:

– Decree to the Senate December 11, 1905, which greatly expanded suffrage in the cities, primarily for the local intelligentsia.

– « Establishment of the State Duma» dated February 20, 1906, which determined the rights of this new legislative body, as well as the procedure for its dissolution and interruption of classes.

– « Establishment of the State Council" that converted it before legislative establishment of the upper house of the Duma.

- summing up all these reforms " Basic laws» April 23, 1906 – actually Constitution, which did not directly receive such a name only out of conservative caution.

- numerous laws that strengthened and expanded civil rights and freedoms.

This legislation, based on the principles of the Manifesto of October 17, replaced the former Russian autocracy with the system of the Duma monarchy, which existed before February Revolution 1917 of the year. New government structure had many shortcomings. Four elected since 1906 State Duma did not become democratic bodies. They were dominated by an oligarchy of rich strata and party leaders, which showed itself not better than that one the tsarist bureaucracy, with which she selflessly was at enmity.

The Manifesto of October 17, 1905 was inspired by the ideas of abstract educational Western parliamentarism, alien to Russian traditions. Attempts to introduce them into Russian political practice suffered, in fact, a severe failure. The Duma was unable to prevent the catastrophic revolution of 1917 and even deliberately contributed to its beginning. The state-zemstvo system was much more consistent with Russian conditions and Russian history, and not the abstract “freedom” that was proclaimed by the Manifesto.